Don't get all misty eyed. There were a great many badly built old houses, many have been pulled down. There are also well built modern houses, but they cost more (surprise).
Our 10 year old place isn't too bad. Craftsmanship isnt great obvs but it's not let us down and it has a good deal of space, two big bedrooms and the third is a good double room too. And it has a garage.
Also doesn't need rewiring, doesn't need new plumbing, heating, wiring, windows or roof. Not only that but it's very well insulated both sound and heat. Far better than some old houses I've lived in.
Oh and, if they made the gardens bigger they'd get fewer houses on each plot therefore they'd cost more. Just saying.
These estates are deeply disturbing but what is far more disturbing is the fact that people actually seem to want to live in them, they actually aspire to the bland dull soulless existence of living in poorly built houses that all look the same.
Awful commuter hubs for idiots to buy.
Wow, great insight there guys, ever think that perhaps the people buying in these soulless commuter villages are just glad they could afford to buy something/ANYthing without having to move jobs/schools/families etc?
We went through this exact process, put offers in on several older properties, got blown out of the water every time. We were eventually GLAD to put money down on a Barratt shoe box in a field between a motorway and an airport...
Oh and, if they made the gardens bigger they’d get fewer houses on each plot therefore they’d cost more. Just saying.
not really - the land is priced based on the profit that can be made from the houses potentially to be built on it. If fewer houses could be built (due to planning regulations) the land would simply be worth less - cost per unit could be the same. Its not like the land has any other uses that put anything like this much value onto them.
However, its not just the developers pushing lots of housing in - dwellings per hectare of below 30 is discouraged (by planning) - with that said the average dph rose by 80% from 2001 to 2009 (that figure may be a bit spurious, as the mix of flats vs houses may have changed).
If a planning policy said 'no more than 20dph in new housing developments' - we'd have less crouded estates at the same price (some land owners would be sad) - but then fewer fields would be available to produce crops. Is that a good thing?
This has been under construction for at least the last 3 years near us, I drive/cycle past it every once in a while take a peek over the fences and wonder when it's going top be finished...
For the bargain price of A QUARTER OF A MILLION POUNDS!!! you can buy a 1 bed flat, a couple of miles from central Reading, next to a business park, overlooking a flooded gravel pit...
Millennials are basically screwed IMO.
Also doesn’t need rewiring, doesn’t need new plumbing, heating, wiring, windows or roof.
What, ever? Bargain!! 🙂
I find it odd that some people’s comments about the build quality and aspect of these new estates come from people who grew up/born in some of the 70’s/80’s estates, and before those some of the 50’s estates for moving people out of crowded cities...
You can’t have it both ways.
Build what people can afford, because there are no council rented schemes anymore.
Very easy to change the law to make new housing more affordable. Some of the Labour Party polices on this make a lot of sense eg allow councils to buy farm land / green belt at a modest multiple of market rates for farm land and then build council houses rather than putting the green belt in the local housing plan, watching the price per hectare 20 fold over night and pricing everyone out except commercial rabbit hutch developers.
Kit Malthouse, predicted that many of the boxes being thrown up on the outskirts of towns would soon be “ripped down and bulldozed” as unsuitable.
Using this terminology "boxes being thrown up" just shows a lazy POV
I've lived in old and new houses - do people really think that your typical 1930's semis or even your 2up 2 down Victorian terraces i.e. affordable family homes for the masses at that time are better built/"more solid"/bigger than a typical modern 3 bed family semi-detached?
It seems that when a lot of people think of old houses and how great they are, they think of substantial terraces with lovely tiled vestibules, high ceilings, period features etc etc - whilst lovely, these are certainly not cheap prospect for a lot of families. Also, was parking really that much better than what we have now?
Agree about housing development or rather new town design though - could be much better.
East of Southampton is a mix of quite bad to terrible new developments. Lots of 1 parking space family homes; in an area that is poorly covered by public transport.
One estate has 'covered parking areas' basically an integrated garage with a garage door sized hole, front and rear, but no doors. How useless. Apparently this is a tax reduction?! It's obvious to me that in a few years time people will be parking in their own back gardens!
And pedestrian access hasn't been thought of at all. I see people jumping the fence to get to get to the supermarket. All it needs is about 2 meters of pavement to join it up, it's not a long way round in real terms but people are lazy - and just want to go to the shops.
Most of the new estates have some green areas and parks for kids. Can't think of one that's got a shop, a library, a school or anything though.
the covered parking area thing is probably a good idea - it means people are likely to actually park there, rather than fill it full of bikes & crap and park on the road instead
I’ve lived in old and new houses – do people really think that your typical 1930’s semis or even your 2up 2 down Victorian terraces i.e. affordable family homes for the masses at that time are better built/”more solid”/bigger than a typical modern 3 bed family semi-detached?
My house is 150yrs old. I fully expect to still be there in another 150yrs.
I don’t expect the new builds on the edge of town to last that long.
My house is 150yrs old. I fully expect to still be there in another 150yrs.
How many 150 year old houses are they building these days?
FWIW, we live on a small estate of 1930s houses. There's no off-street parking by design. Many people have converted their front gardens, but not an option for us (we live behind a very small green).
It was clearly thrown up* when it was built but is still here, so I expect the houses being built to code today (where they actually are meeting the code) will last at least 100 years.
* we know this because we've removed a lot of it and replaced it with steel.
ooohhh so this is where all the people that had their houses on Grand Designs hang out....
Some awesome expertise on show. Can anyone tell me how long/short new houses last until they fall down?
Full disclosure: My house is four years old, small front garden, good size rear, parking for 3 cars off-street, 3 decent sized double bedrooms and one single, a car will* fit in the garage. Older houses in a similar area for similar money need a huge amount of updating as they all look like they were last touched in the 50/60/70s
*assuming your car is very small
What I don’t understand is where are all these people coming from!?
molgrips
Ladies wombs, mostly. Population is increasing I think.
We are gaining lots of people from abroad, and they don't distribute evenly throughout the UK which is one of the reasons why for example Scotland has a problem with ageing population.
775,000 births and 597,000 deaths in the UK. Net population change from births/deaths: +178,000
627,000 people arrived and 345,000 left. Net population change from movement: +283,000
Data is from 2016.
Data is from 2016.
That's probably changed quite a bit since then... !! 😀
Some awesome expertise on show. Can anyone tell me how long/short new houses last until they fall down?
I might be wrong, but I think shoddily built old houses would've had similar issues to shoddily built new ones
I might be wrong, but I think shoddily built old houses would’ve had similar issues to shoddily built new ones
But they've either been pulled down or someone else has already fixed them by now, it's like natural selection.
I wouldn't risk buying a new home, but I know some people like them and are not fussed about garden size, being crammed into a new estate or the awkward little roads they're on.
We had a look at the various new developments that are going up around the Droitwich area and they all seem to be built on top of each other with no real outside spacxe to them.
Also..... why do they make the 3rd bedrooms so small... 6'0 wide is not bedroom size
But they’ve either been pulled down or someone else has already fixed them by now, it’s like natural selection.
That's a big assumption and my own house moving (back when still a teenager) says its not the case either. One 40 year old house avoided as it was twisted, another then needed it's roof (including all timbers) redesigned and replaced.
I wouldn’t risk buying a new home, but I know some people like them and are not fussed about garden size, being crammed into a new estate or the awkward little roads they’re on.
and thats just a silly generalisation to go with your assumption. I will concede that loads of places we looked at were also our idea of hell. OTOH, I might go down to the new pub tonight via various mature leafy paths, then return via other nice paths and the new 'village' shop.
What I don’t understand is where are all these people coming from!?
I believe Nigel has a theory about that....
It's all the EU's fault we have bland housing estate in the middle of nowhere.
Come Independance day we can go back to living properly, in mud huts, using stone based tools....
One thing i don't understand with a lot of new estates, and this is a generalisation and doesn't apply to all, is there a reason the roads systems are like a rabbit warren, with roads coming off other roads with little cul-de-sacs coming off them?
Is it simply trying to get "X" amount of buildings into a space? Any reason they don't build them on a grid-iron pattern or more simple street system?
Not having a pop, just interested...
Is it simply trying to get “X” amount of buildings into a space?
Partly yes.
It's also to slow traffic down in the estates and they also benefit from the optical illusion provided by curved streets which means that you can only see so far down the street in either direction which makes it look like there are less houses than there actually are.
Makes the estate seem less tightly packed to the punters who will then pay higher prices.
Also….. why do they make the 3rd bedrooms so small… 6’0 wide is not bedroom size
All architects are first-borns, and those who have reached the career backwater of housing estate design have a chip on their shoulder due to working longer for less money than their younger siblings. (my theory based on no facts whatsoever)
@percypanther thanks for that answer, now i know...
I shouldn't take the mick, i live in a small village with two roads, the main road is called "Main Road" and the lane that comes of it round the back is called "Back Lane" must have been a long meeting in the pub to decide them
is there a reason the roads systems are like a rabbit warren, with roads coming off other roads with little cul-de-sacs coming off them?
It adds desirability, because people want cul-de-sacs for their kids to play in. And it works - we live at the end of one such street and there are kids (including ours) playing in it all the time. If it were a through road this would not be possible. Only problem is that it's not flat which makes learning to roller skate quite hard 🙂
OTOH, I might go down to the new pub tonight via various mature leafy paths, then return via other nice paths and the new ‘village’ shop.
Our horrible estate is right opposite a strip of 200+ year old woodland, you can walk through lots of mature leafy paths. Only problem is (and this is the point of the thread, it wasn't meant to be a dig at the houses themselves or the people who live in them) they only lead to other houses.
Our 1920's built cottage isn't very well made. It's cold, and some of the windows and doorways are visibly off-square. Our previous 90's built house seemed much better built.
20's house has a shit load of outdoor space though, which more than makes up for the build in my eyes. Depends what you value and, as mentioned, do you really want modern estates to eat up all the greenbelt by having massive gardens?
Not sure most people want a massive garden, ours is large my modern standards and takes a lot of effort to maintain to a high standard (at least 1 day a week during peak growing season, mowing, weeding, pruning etc).
They are building nicely made houses with big gardens near me. They're all north of £500k. Better product costing more shocker.
Last time I came back to Kent I was amazed at numbers of houses being built.
I hate those estates with a passion but my bil and sil love them.
Did anyone see the Taylor wimpey ones in Peebles? Horrific, really felt for the folk that were left, god knows how you can properly remediate mortar with virtually no cement content in it.
footflaps
Member
Not sure most people want a massive garden, ours is large my modern standards and takes a lot of effort to maintain to a high standard (at least 1 day a week during peak growing season, mowing, weeding, pruning etc).
And luckily whenever these new estates are built the developers make sure there is enough space to build a playground for the kids. I mean, they don't actually build the playground. There's no budget for that. But there's a nice scrap of land for people's dogs to shit on.
I think one of the reasons developers don't build shops etc. (apart from the fact they don't have to) is the fact that most of the shops that were built into new developments in the 60s and 70s have long since shut. The demand isn't there to make them viable, same goes for the flat roof pubs often included in older developments.
As for older housing is so much better, really? Hundreds of thousands of terraces up and down the country, crammed together, no parking, little or no garden, poor access and made from Victorian materials (horse hair plaster) with no insulation or damp proof course.
As for older housing is so much better, really? Hundreds of thousands of terraces up and down the country, crammed together, no parking, little or no garden, poor access and made from Victorian materials (horse hair plaster) with no insulation or damp proof course.
Depends on the street I guess, but our Victorian terrace is well built, large gardens and dry as a bone. The workmanship, esp carpentry is way better than anything you'd see built now bar the very top end of the market.
The lack of parking has one interesting consequence, as you can't park your car on your drive or even guarentee a space outside the house, a car is useless as a status symbol; so you get a much more eclectic set of cars in the street - function over form.
As for older housing is so much better, really? Hundreds of thousands of terraces up and down the country, crammed together, no parking, little or no garden, poor access and made from Victorian materials (horse hair plaster) with no insulation or damp proof course.
you're forgetting the architectural wonder-material of bungaroosh.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bungaroosh
